vrijdag 16 februari 2007

The Bush administration is to increase the official quota of Iraqi refugees who will be allowed to settle in the United States from 500 to 7,000 over the next year, in a response to the growing refugee crisis in Iraq.The move follows repeated criticism of the US by humanitarian groups for failing to help more than 3 million Iraqis displaced from their homes since the conflict began.So far the United States has allowed only 463 Iraq refugees into the country since the war began nearly four years ago.Under the expanded refugee programme, to be announced later today, the administration also plans to pledge $18m (£9.2m) for a worldwide resettlement and relief programme.The United Nations has asked for $60m (£30.6m) from nations around the world. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today met with UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres to outline the expanded US programme.The 7,000 would be resettled from nations outside Iraq where they have fled. The US proposal also includes plans to offer special treatment for Iraqis still in their country whose cooperation with the US government puts them at risk from sectarian reprisal.Aid organisations report a growing emergency inside Iraq and in neighbouring countries as thousands flee sectarian violence every day. The United Nations estimates there are more than 1.5 million Iraqis displaced within the country and a similar number living as refugees in Jordan, Syria and elsewhere. In December, Washington-based Refugees International warned that acceleration in the numbers fleeing Iraq meant it could soon overtake Darfur as the source of the world's worst refugee crisis.'

GENEVA (AFP) - A planned UN human rights mission to the strife-torn region of Darfur said that it would carry on its work outside Sudan after being denied entry visas.

The mission, headed by Nobel peace laureate and anti-landmines campaigner Jody Williams, has been in the Ethiopian capital Addis Ababa since the weekend for talks with African Union officials.The mission said in a statement that it had decided "it can no longer allow the continued uncertainty regarding visas from Sudan to impede the continuance" of its work.Williams has decided the mission will now "proceed and collect all relevant information from locations outside the country," the statement added.Sudan's foreign ministry said on Monday it would not grant visas to the mission if it included an unnamed individual known for his "hostility" to Sudan.Khartoum has in the past criticised delegation member Bertrand Ramcharan, the former UN deputy high commissioner for human rights, for describing the situation in Darfur as a "genocide," according to a diplomatic source in Geneva.The mission has been fraught with difficulties and complications ever since its inception at a fractious special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva last December.Western countries were insistent that the council probe human rights abuses in Darfur, where some 200,000 people are estimated to have been killed and two million displaced.African and Islamic states said Sudan was being singled out for unfair criticism.Khartoum's allies then sought to have the mission comprised of national ambassadors to the council, with its president Luis Alfonso de Alba at its head.This was rejected by Western nations who insisted anything other than full independence from member states would water down the mission's credibility.De Alba then proposed that Williams head the inquiry, but his inclusion of ambassadors from Indonesia and Gabon sparked the ire of Western diplomats who feared their presence would compromise the mission's integrity.The French ambassador to theBovenkant formulierUnited Nations' name=c1>SEARCHNewsNews PhotosImagesWeb' name=c3>Onderkant formulierUnited Nations in Geneva, Jean-Maurice Ripert, said he was "surprised and disappointed" by their inclusion.UN monitors in Darfur are already reporting back about violations and attacks on civilians to High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour.'

CAIRO, Egypt: Police arrested 75 members of the Muslim Brotherhood on Thursday, in what appeared to be a pre-emptive strike against the country's largest Islamic group ahead of elections and a key parliamentary debate, a police spokesman and the Brotherhood said.A Brotherhood executive said the detentions risked provoking violence — not from the group itself, but from those who would infer the state was leaving no scope for peaceful Islamic political activity.The arrests bring the total of Brotherhood members in custody to just under 300, according to figures provided by the group and the New York-based Human Rights Watch.The Muslim Brotherhood is Egypt's strongest opposition group and although it has been banned since 1954, the group is tolerated within strict limits and suffers regular police crackdowns.Police did not give a reason for Thursday's early morning detentions, but those arrested were mostly Brotherhood members expected to stand in the April elections for the Shura Council, the upper house of parliament, as well as assistants to the group's legislators, said Abdel Gelil el-Sharnoubi, the editor of the Brotherhood's Web site.El-Sharnoubi said the group had not yet chosen its candidates for the Shura polls, but that the authorities targeted "figures who are popular in their provinces and are expected to run the elections."The Brotherhood did surprisingly well in the 2005 legislative elections, winning 88 seats in the 454-member parliament. The government then postponed the 2006 municipal elections for two years, apparently out of fear of more Brotherhood gains.Brotherhood candidates stand as independents in elections but their campaigns are financed by the group and voters know their allegiance."They also arrested a number of legislators' assistants in order to paralyze the lawmakers," el-Sharnoubi added.President Hosni Mubarak has asked the legislature to amend 34 articles in the constitution as part of a political reform package.The opposition has criticized the amendments as doing little to advance democracy. One amendment would ban the formation of political parties with a religious foundation — a restriction clearly aimed at the Brotherhood.Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, a Brotherhood executive, acknowledged that the crackdown would impede the group's ability to campaign."There is no doubt about that. Those who have been arrested are national, reputable people," he said on Al-Arabiyah satellite TV. '

'Iraq's death toll is far worse than our leaders admit.The US and Britain have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide.By Les Roberts.

On both sides of the Atlantic, a process of spinning science is preventing a serious discussion about the state of affairs in Iraq. The government in Iraq claimed last month that since the 2003 invasion between 40,000 and 50,000 violent deaths have occurred. Few have pointed out the absurdity of this statement.There are three ways we know it is a gross underestimate. First, if it were true, including suicides, South Africa, Colombia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia have experienced higher violent death rates than Iraq over the past four years. If true, many North and South American cities and Sub-Saharan Africa have had a similar murder rate to that claimed in Iraq. For those of us who have been in Iraq, the suggestion that New Orleans is more violent seems simply ridiculous.Secondly, there have to be at least 120,000 and probably 140,000 deaths per year from natural causes in a country with the population of Iraq. The numerous stories we hear about overflowing morgues, the need for new cemeteries and new body collection brigades are not consistent with a 10 per cent rise in death rate above the baseline.And finally, there was a study, peer-reviewed and published in The Lancet, Europe's most prestigious medical journal, which put the death toll at 650,000 as of last July. The study, which I co-authored, was done by the standard cluster approach used by the UN to estimate mortality in dozens of countries each year. While the findings are imprecise, the lower range of possibilities suggested that the Iraq government was at least downplaying the number of dead by a factor of 10.There are several reasons why the governments involved in this conflict have been able to confuse the issue of Iraqi deaths. Our Lancet report involved sampling and statistical analysis, which is rather dry reading. Media reports always miss most deaths in times of war, so the estimate by the media-based monitoring system, Iraqbodycount.org (IBC) roughly corresponds with the Iraq government's figures. Repeated evaluations of deaths identified from sources independent of the press and the Ministry of Health show the IBC listing to be less than 10 per cent complete, but because it matches the reports of the governments involved, it is easily referenced.Several other estimates have placed the death toll far higher than the Iraqi government estimates, but those have received less press attention. When in 2005, a UN survey reported that 90 per cent of violent attacks in Scotland were not recorded by the police, no one, not even the police, disputed this finding. Representative surveys are the next best thing to a census for counting deaths, and nowhere but Iraq have partial tallies from morgues and hospitals been given such credence when representative survey results are available.The Pentagon will not release information about deaths induced or amounts of weaponry used in Iraq. On 9 January of this year, the embedded Fox News reporter Brit Hume went along for an air attack, and we learned that at least 25 targets were bombed that day with almost no reports of the damage appearing in the press.Saddam Hussein's surveillance network, which only captured one third of all deaths before the invasion, has certainly deteriorated even further. During last July, there were numerous televised clashes in Anbar, yet the system recorded exactly zero violent deaths from the province. The last Minister of Health to honestly assess the surveillance network, Dr Ala'din Alwan, admitted that it was not reporting from most of the country by August 2004. He was sacked months later after, among other things, reports appeared based on the limited government data suggesting that most violent deaths were associated with coalition forces.The consequences of downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq are profound for both the UK and the US. How can the Americans have a surge of troops to secure the population and promise success when the coalition cannot measure the level of security to within a factor of 10? How can the US and Britain pretend they understand the level of resentment in Iraq if they are not sure if, on average, one in 80 families have lost a household member, or one in seven, as our study suggests?If these two countries have triggered an episode more deadly than the Rwandan genocide, and have actively worked to mask this fact, how will they credibly be able to criticise Sudan or Zimbabwe or the next government that kills thousands of its own people?For longer than the US has been a nation, Britain has pushed us at our worst of moments to do the right thing. That time has come again with regard to Iraq. It is wrong to be the junior partner in an endeavour rigged to deny the next death induced, and to have spokespeople effectively respond to that death with disinterest and denial.'

It is becoming clear to more and more energy analysts that the United States of America as we know it will not endure for long. However, the U.S. may not last at all, if oil collapse and the birth of a sustainable culture play out freely. Primarily considering the implications of "peak oil," let us explore key unforgiving trends, dispassionately, so as to arrive at a truthful and hopefully constructive vision for the future.Most scenarios reflect wishful thinking or influence from the mass media, academia and industrial interests. Rather than predictions such as the promise of a technologically green consumer society -- a popular preference -- a clear analysis must include all the main elements however unpalatable. To create a better world we must first deal with hard reality. What is ahead that we cannot change? When that question is faced honestly, the possibility is greater to affect future change in a positive way. And there is hope in the resurgence of community and renewed appreciation of nature.I am a petroleum-industry analyst, although I last saw any money from the oil industry back in 1988 when I told Exxon and Mobil I was terminating my market research business. My office then became an environmental institute, and I proceeded to get a much clearer picture of oil's place in the world than from my previous sixteen years known for publishing "the bible of the oil industry," the Lundberg Letter. My understanding of oil and energy in the economy and culture has brought me to my present analysis about the end of the United States of America.Here are my limits on my objectivity: I have no investments other than wanting to see family and friends do especially well in terms of health and happiness in the extremely turbulent phase ahead. I am further biased in wanting the Earth to have maximum biodiversity, but either the web of life holds or it will not. I will shed no tears over the disappearance of General Motors, for example, which is teetering already. Such a corporation -- found guilty for destroying dozens of cities' electric rail trolley service -- is an enemy of the planet and of the people.The fall of the U.S. may be the swiftest empire collapse in world history. It is obvious that the U.S. population and the nation's infrastructure is heavily petroleum dependent. The U.S. peaked in oil production (extraction) in 1971. The world may be peaking now, as some evidence indicates, or in a few short years. As a severe energy shortage is on tap as soon as the gap between supply and demand is felt by the market, and the Earth gives noticeably less oil than just recently, there will be a cascade of impacts on the economy and people's lives.So it will not matter how much oil is still in the ground, or if other ways of obtaining and using energy are more renewable and greener: A massive shut down of petroleum supply brought about by market panic and economic collapse will terminate corporate globalism and the political landscape as well. [As discussed in this essay and in links at the end, production of other forms of energy cannot substitute for petroleum and will not be maximized for readiness anyway.] Many aspects of modern society are at a breaking point already, whether one looks at the Iraq war over oil, the housing market bubble, U.S. debt and deficits, or the prospects of damaging weather from the fast distorting of the planet's climate.Not only will the sudden oil shortage ahead mean the Final Energy Crisis, the present economy only works on growth: so even a plateau of global petroleum extraction -- what seems to be happening now, although it is being called "insufficient refining capacity for poor quality crude oil" -- would mean the house of economic cards collapses on its own. Recovery from such an event, even if not from oil shortage, would appear impossible because supplies of oil would be among the commodities suddenly scarce, and this would have a terminal effect on much economic activity and people's lives.'

A new survey of more than 100 U.S. foreign policy experts -- both Republicans and Democrats, as well as retired military and intelligence professionals -- has found deep pessimism over the "global war on terror" and even deeper pessimism over the war in Iraq. According to the survey, the second in the last six months carried out by Foreign Policy magazine and the Centre for American Progress, two out of three foreign policy experts oppose President George W. Bush's plans to increase troop levels in Iraq, while nearly nine out of 10 say the war there is undermining U.S. national security. Overall, three out of four respondents disagreed with assertion that Washington "is winning the war on terror", while 81 percent said the world is becoming "more dangerous" to the United States and its people. The survey also found wide, although narrowing differences compared to six months ago, between expert opinion and the views of the general public on a range of issues related to Iraq and the war on terrorism. Experts were significantly more pessimistic that the public at large and voiced considerably less confidence in the Bush administration's performance. The survey, called "The Terrorism Index" and published in the upcoming issue of Foreign Policy, is based on interviews with former senior government officials who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, as well as independent analysts, experts and journalists who have covered national security issues. Eighty percent of respondents have served in the U.S. government, and more than half in the executive branch, including in the White House or in top cabinet posts. Twenty-six percent served in the military and 18 percent in the intelligence community. As to their political leanings, 30 percent of respondents identified themselves as "conservative"; 42 percent said they were "moderate"; and 44 percent "liberal". But the survey organisers weighted the results so that the views of self-described "conservatives" were given equal representation with those of the "liberals". When broken down ideologically, 43 percent of the conservatives polled said they believed the U.S. is winning the war on terror, compared to 50 percent of conservatives who disagreed. Only five percent of both moderates and liberals said they thought Washington was winning. By contrast, 46 percent of the general public told interviewers in a Pew Center for the People & the Press survey conducted last November that Washington is winning the war on terrorism, although that number has shrunk to around 33 percent in the most recent polling. Asked whether they believed Bush had a plan to protect the country from terrorism, seven out of 10 of the expert respondents -- including nearly 40 percent of the self-described conservatives -- said no. By contrast, 51 percent of the public said last November that Bush does indeed have a plan. Experts were particularly pessimistic on Iraq and U.S. policy there. Eighty-eight percent of the experts said the war is having a negative impact on U.S. national security. Asked to rate the administration's job in Iraq on a 10-point scale, 92 percent of respondents -- including 82 percent of conservatives -- described it as below five. Fifty-nine percent of the entire group gave the administration the lowest possible rating (1-2), including a plurality of 48 percent of conservatives. Significantly, among 81 percent of experts who said the world is becoming "more dangerous" to the U.S., a large plurality identified the Iraq war as "one principal reason" why. Only six months ago, the reason most cited by the experts who believed the world was becoming more dangerous was anger and hostility among Muslims.'

UNICEF has damned Britain and the United States as the worst places for children to live among wealthy nations, in a new report which caused widespread soul-searching.The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland topped the 21 industrial powers assessed for the child well-being report released Wednesday.Britain's youngsters had the worst relationships with their family and peers, suffered more from poverty and indulged in more "binge drinking" and hazardous sex than children in other wealthy nations, said the report.The United States placed 20 and Britain 21 on the list.Stung by the ranking, which featured on the front page of virtually every newspaper, the British government said much of the data used by UNICEF was outdated.A government spokesman said: "We recognise that UNICEF does vital work in this area ... But in many cases the data used is several years old and does not reflect more recent improvements in the UK."But a children's policy watchdog warned of "a crisis at the heart of our society.""Despite being a rich country, the UK is failing children and young people in a number of crucial ways," said Bob Reitemeier, chief executive of The Children's Society.Britain came in last for two of the main six areas studied by UNICEF: relationships, especially with their peers; and risky behaviour such as sex, drink and drugs.It ranked 20 for children's own assessment of their happiness, finished at 18 for poverty and inequality, landed at 17 for education over the long-term and scored 12th for health and safety.More broadly, Britain joined the United States and Sweden in having the highest proportion of children living in single-parent families, while Italy, Greece and Spain had the lowest.UNICEF said child poverty -- defined as the percentage of children living in homes with equivalent incomes below 50 percent of the national median -- remains above the 15 percent mark in Britain, the United States and Ireland, as well as Spain, Portugal and Italy.Britain's young people are also shown to live up to their infamous reputation for "binge-drinking," hazardous sexual activity and drug use.Almost a third of British youngsters aged 11, 13 and 15 reported being drunk on two or more occasions, against just an average of under 15 percent in the majority of OECD countries.Britain did make progress however in the field of child safety, having cut the incidence of deaths from accidents and injuries to the "remarkably low level" of fewer than 10 per 10,000.Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy also achieved the same rate of progress. Britain's opposition Conservative party accused Gordon Brown, the finance minister who is expected to succeed Tony Blair as prime minister this year, of "failing" a generation of children.'

'[Journalist Larry Chin reveals superbly documented evidence of the Bush administration's rhetoric and actions which are propelling the U.S. into a frightening conflagration with Iran--CB]Bush administration pushes for attack with provocations, espionage, official deceptions, and false flag terror.The Bush administration will attack Iran as early as spring 2007.

The administration is on total war footing.Over the next few months, the administration and its allies and functionaries will create and provoke a pretext that forces a political consensus behind an attack on Iran. Any or all of the following may occur:* Violent resistance to US occupation within Iraq is blamed on Iran. As previously noted, the idea that Iran is arming Iraqi attacks against US forces is a central theme of new Bush administration propaganda. Paul Pillar, former CIA officer and member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is among many critics arguing that Iran is not behind the attacks. This will not stop the Bush-Cheney apparatus from spewing lies to the contrary.* A major terror attack against US interests is blamed on Iran. In a recent testimony before the US Senate, Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that the Bush administration is headed down a "downhill track towards a head-on conflict with Iran and much of the world of Islam"---and that the conflict may begin with a major terror attack, either domestically or overseas, against Americans by Iran. (See also here, and here.)In Brzezinski’s words, the Bush administration’s mismanagement of Iraq is an "historic, strategic and moral calamity", "driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris" that "intensifies regional instability" and (of primary, if not sole concern to Brzezinski) "undermines America’s global legitimacy". Brzezinski, a chief architect of the US "Grand Chessboard" geostrategy, which laid the foundation for the 9/11 attacks, has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s "mishandling" of the war. The Bush administration has longed for the right moment to set off "the next 9/11".* Iraq-Iran diplomacy characterized as terrorist interference by Iran.* Real and imaginary Iranian responses to Bush administration rhetoric or provocations will be characterized as war provocation by Tehran.* New evidence of Iranian nuclear "intentions" will be "found", and presented to the "international community", in order to sanction punishment.Will the world fall for it again?Gates lays the propaganda groundworkIn a just-completed testimony that may lay the official foundation for the coming Iran attack, Defense Secretary and Iran-Contra participant Robert Gates has asserted that Iran is "very much involved" in arming Iraqi "militants".This new assertion (which Gates has not backed with verifiable proof from a credible source) is based on serial numbers allegedly found on the remnants of bombs used against US forces in Iraq. Gates also stated that material seized during the (illegal and Bush-ordered) raid of the Iranian liason office in Irbil, Iraq is being included in the larger case of cooked and false intelligence against Tehran.Gates, who skated into his post as Donald Rumsfeld’s replacement posing as a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq war policy, is now the Bush administration’s number one weapon of mass deception on Iran.Covert operationsThe Iran-Iraq region has been brimming with CIA activity for well over a year. It is already a known fact that George W. Bush personally ordered provocative covert operations several months ago, aimed at baiting Iran into a war.Iran’s intelligence minister Gholam Hossein Ejeli claims that Iran has uncovered a network of 100 CIA and Mossad agents.(Also see here.)This comes in wake of a Bush "shoot to kill" order: hunt down and kill Iranians in Iraq.Militarily and politically encircledEvents are unfolding exactly as warned by former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, whose book Target: Iran has predicted every step the criminal Bush administration and its allies have taken.In the view of John Pilger, the war is already on.As noted by Dmitriy Sedov, preparations for devastation of Iraq in the spring are well underway. Among the many clear signs:"-The UN Security Council Resolution envisions that a further tightening of the sanctions imposed on Iran must take place after February 21, 2006. From the standpoint of international law, this is a pretext (essentially a poor one, but one that does exist) to legalize an aggression against a country.-Two US aircraft carrier groups armed with nukes are moving into the region. The US aircraft carrier groups have been on missions 5 times over the past 15 years. In 4 cases out of 5, they launched military offensives. In March 2007, both groups are to take their combat positions.-Additional ground forces are shifted to the border between Iraq and Iran. Preparations for a new phase of hostilities are underway.-In February, Patriot missile defense systems will be ready to defend Israel and the aircraft carrier groups from enemy airstrikes.-British combat engineers are entering the regions of the future fighting, clearly in order to operate in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iranians are most likely to lay mines.-The US and Israel launched a powerful information and propaganda campaign preparing the global public opinion for aggression.-CENTCOM’s Commander John Abizade, an opponent of the war with Iran, resigned. His position was taken over by Admiral W. Fallon, a veteran of the 1991 Iraq and 1995 Bosnia campaigns."The Bush administration is pushing for a "surge" of up to 50,000 troops to the Middle East. Although ostensibly for Iraq, but this force is clearly intended to coincide with action against Iran.The murder and cover-up of an Iranian diplomacy effortIn 2003, Tehran sent a sweeping proposal to the Bush administration (via the Swiss Embassy) for dialogue and regional cooperation. Bush administration officials confirm that this memo was widely circulated and discussed---and flatly rejected by the White House.New charges of possible criminal cover-up have emerged regarding the sudden "memory lapse" of top Bush administration figures regarding this proposal.Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice confirmed the memo in a recent interview on National Public Radio ("what the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States"), but suddenly reversed course. She now claims "I don’t remember ever seeing any such thing". According to the Washington Post, Flynt Leverett, Rice’s staff member at the National Security Council, the Iranian proposal was received, and discussed.In an interesting twist, Leverett claims that it was not his responsibility to "put it on Rice’s desk" because Iran-Contra co-conspirator Elliot Abrams was in charge of Middle East policy. Like Rice, Abrams, who now serves as the deputy national security adviser in charge of Middle East "democracy promotion", also claims "no memory of any such fax and never saw or heard any such thing.Former State Department officials also claim to have seen the Iranian offer, and note that it was incorporated into a 2003 memo to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, proposing a "grand bargain" with Iran. According to the officials, Powell did not forward the memo to the White House.Worldwide "terrorism" resurgenceThe Bush administration’s buildup comes simultaneous with new and resurfacing threats from "terrorists" working covertly on behalf of Anglo-American interests. Bush-Cheney’s "war on terrorism" criminal network is ramping up for a new phase of violence that it will connect to Iran.According to unnamed US and British intelligence officials, "Al-Qaeda" has regrouped, and is once again "capable and intent on launching mass attacks around the globe".In Afghanistan, under US occupation (and, not surprisingly, in the middle of a once again mushrooming heroin industry), the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, both of which serve as military-intelligence fronts for the US, are "back". New York Times reporter Carlotta Gall reports that the new Taliban surge in Afghanistan is connected to Pakistan, and Pakistan’s ISI. In course of her investigation, Gall was assaulted by ISI agents.Gall has clearly hit a major nerve. Pakistani civilians "fear the ISI", and for good reason.The activities of the ISI (a virtual branch of the CIA), the connection between the CIA and the ISI, cuts directly to the heart of ongoing Anglo-American military-intelligence operations across the Middle East and Central Asia. Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was murdered in 2002 during his investigation of the ISI, and connections between the ISI and "Al-Qaeda", and 9/11.Even as Tehran has attempted repeatedly to assist the Bush administration in hunting down terrorists, the Bush administration continues to blame terrorism on Tehran. A report that Osama bin Laden’s son was located in Iran will no doubt be used as fodder by the Bush propaganda apparatus.Wag the dogIn addition to its many long-term geostrategic agendas behind an attack on Iran, the publicly despised Bush administration is facing political fallout domestically, and competition from the neoliberal faction (the Democrats) positioning for new political gains.The administration also faces the prospect of embarrassing, and potentially devastating, revelations from the Scooter Libby/Dick Cheney/Plamegate trial, and other investigations of Bush administration crimes. Cheney, and George W. Bush himself, have now been directly implicated in the Libby proceedings.In other black eye for the administration, a just-released report from the Pentagon's Inspector General blasts Office of Special Planning, headed by neocon (Project for a New American Century) stalwart Douglas Feith, for manufacturing "dubious" intelligence leading up to the Iraq war, including a "predisposition" to link Iraq with Al-Qaeda.The greater the damage to the Bush administration, the greater the odds of a new "wag the dog" distraction--- "the next 9/11"---orchestrated by the Bush administration and Karl Rove.Washington virtually silent on IranThe "mismanagement" of the Iraq occupation, and feeble attempts to wrestle control of the Iraq political agenda, remains the focus of endless Washington political posturing and procedural wrangling.Iran, and Bush-Cheney’s provocations, have not been major topics of argument. Based on what little discussion there has been on Iran, the leading Democrats are reportedly split over the issue.But they are uniformly behind the Bush administration’s "war on terrorism", which seals Iran’s fate. A convincing pretext would easily bring the Democrats in line to support an attack.Iran’s oilAccording to Michael Klare, conflict with Iran must be viewed as a chapter of resource war. According to some Iranian estimates, there is enough energy to last many decades. The Bush administration must also be infuriated that Tehran has shown intense interest in doing energy business with foreign investors (not American ones), and maintains good ties with both China and Russia.As Peak Oil and Gas makes itself in earnest, and the lifeblood of the Anglo-American empire disappears drop by drop, Iran’s geostrategic importance (as a target) looms.The gates of hell open widerSome skeptics have maintained for years that the Bush administration will not attack Iran, based on the rational concept that not even the Bush administration and its neocons would be insane enough risk a full-blown superpower nuclear war.But in a testimony before Congress, Robert Gates declared that the Pentagon, indeed, has plans for full-scale war against Iran, Russia and China. This statement, a virtual promise of world war, suggests that the Anglo-American establishment is prepared to wage the endless war. So much for sanity.In his strongest criticism yet, Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the Bush administration for its "almost uncontained use of military force" and "unilateral, illegitimate actions". Said Putin, "One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."

The next murderous overstep will be the destruction of Iran.Larry Chin is an Associate Editor of Online Journal, and a contributor to Centre for Global Research and formerly to From The Wilderness.'

'War with Iran?By Ken Silverstein.02/14/07 "Harper's" -- - Is war with Iran on the way? We hear from four former CIA officials.Milt BeardenMilt Bearden is an author and film consultant. A former senior CIA officer, he served as station chief in Pakistan from 1986 until the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989.As insane as the prospect for war might seem to those of us who have spent parts of our lives in the shadow of a mosque, it is impossible to ignore the drumbeats for war with Iran. Yes, I think Americans should be prepared to wake up one morning and find themselves at war with Iran.I am seeing constant trumpeting by the administration of “evidence” of Iranian weapons, equipment, or technology, linked with American casualties in Iraq. I don't know why anyone would be surprised by Iranian gambling in our Iraqi casino—especially as there are time-honored rules, at least a half-century old, for proxy wars. The Soviets and Chinese armed our adversaries in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, where we suffered about 100,000 killed in action. Nevertheless, successive American administrations never gave serious thought to attacking either China or the U.S.S.R. in response to their arming of our enemies. And I personally funneled much of the ordnance to the Afghan resistance fighters that killed 15,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Here again, the U.S.S.R. never seriously considered striking at the source of their torment in Afghanistan.If the administration uses Iran's involvement in the Iraq misadventure as a casus belli, the American people should at least know the historical realities before we're piped off to yet another folly. Going to war with Iran will have no good outcome for anyone except Iran. We have neither the forces nor the money for such a war, and those who think they can get by with “shock and awe” need to be shouted down now.It is entirely possible that we've already lost the Iraq enterprise; it is also possible that as we turn up the heat in Afghanistan—there is much talk about an American “Spring offensive”—we will create a generalized resistance to our occupation and lose that war as well. Our planned tactics for the new “fighting season” in Afghanistan are hauntingly reminiscent of the failed tactics of the U.S.S.R. in their Afghan misadventure. I watched with amazement as the U.S.S.R. did everything wrong in Afghanistan, finally pulled out, and ended up losing their “empire.” Take note.Anonymous Former CIA Official #1A former CIA official, who asked to remain unnamed. He was stationed in the Persian Gulf during the first Gulf War and served in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.I don't think the administration is about to carry out military action. The military does not want to do this. We will lose planes if there is a massive air strike over Iran, we'll have pilots killed and captured. Iran has a lot of ways to hurt us. If they decide to come after uniformed personnel in Iraq, or more easily, civilians and contractors, things could quickly get out of hand. You could have kidnappings or a mass casualty attack—they drove us out of Lebanon in the 1980s; a mass casualty attack like the Marine barracks bombing would likely be the end in Iraq.But the administration's actions are increasing the chances for an accidental confrontation. People don't realize how small and narrow the Gulf is, especially as you approach the Straits of Hormuz. The tanker/container and related commerce traffic is incredible and it goes on twenty-four hours a day. We've already got one carrier battle group there and now we're going to put in another one, which will add a huge footprint. When you have, on both sides, nineteen-year-olds manning weapons, it's a formula for an accident that could spin out of control.Here's an example: Every night, members of the Revolutionary Guard pack up their speed boats with rugs and crafts, really pricey stuff. They weave their way through all the traffic on the Gulf and sell the stuff on remote areas of beach just north of Sharjah, Ajman, and Umm al Qaywayn. They off-load and sell their goods and then load up with Jack Daniels, porn, CDs, electronics, satellite receivers, and computers, and weave their way back through traffic to Iran. At 3 a.m. on a moonless night, one of those boats speeding across the Gulf could easily cross the defensive radar signature of a U.S. frigate, and it's going to get shot up. So you have a situation that is essentially an accident, and all of a sudden you have a crisis.Military action is not the best option. This is not like Iraq's Osirak reactor, which Israel destroyed in 1981. In that case, there was a single target. Iran's nuclear program is dispersed and our intelligence picture is thin because we don't have enough well-placed spies. It would take a massive air strike package with consecutive strikes to hit all the targets. You could hurt them and complicate their activities, but I don't think you could turn off their program.'

De commerciele massamedia in de polder zijn verdacht stil over dit onderwerp. In de VS wordt volop geanlyseerd en bericht over de dreigende aanval op Iran.

'Is the Military Our Last Hope?By Paul Craig Roberts

Is the high command of the US military breaking ranks with the Bush Regime? With the “mainstream media,” that is, the government’s propaganda ministry, bombarding the American public with “news reports” from unidentified sources that the US government has proof that “the highest reaches of the Iranian government” is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency, Marine General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, demurred. General Pace told the Voice of America on February 12 that he has no information indicating that Iran’s government is supplying weapons to the Iraqi insurgency. General Pace said that “Iranians are involved,” but “what I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this . . . I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.” Unlike the New York Times, Fox “news,” CNN, and the TV networks, General Pace refused to lie for the Bush Regime.Perhaps America could regain its reputation if General Pace would send a division of US Marines to arrest Bush, Cheney, the entire civilian contingent in the Pentagon, the neoconservative nazis, and the complicit members of Congress and send them off to the Hague to be tried for war crimes. But he did the best he could and refused to lie for warmongers.There is absolutely no doubt that Bush-Cheney and the neoconservative nazis are planning revenge against General Pace. We can only hope the general does not have a wife who works for the CIA. Bush’s support stands at 30% or less of the American population; Cheney’s at 20% or less. How can “leaders” who are not supported by public opinion or by a single fact escalate a war that is entirely based on lies while starting a new war that is entirely based on lies?Is America any longer a democracy where failed leaders are held to account? Obviously not. What has America become while it has been in the hands of the Bush Regime?How can any patriotic American support a regime that has shredded the US Constitution, ignored the separation of powers, violated the Geneva Conventions, forced through a law legalizing torture, launched a war of aggression that has produced 26,000 American military casualties in service of a lie, murdered tens or hundreds of thousands of Muslim civilians, destroyed an entire country, and planned an attack on Iran, perhaps with nuclear weapons?Patriotism is loyalty to country and to the US Constitution, not loyalty to a criminal regime.'

Foreign Policy In Focuswww.fpif.orgFaced with growing public opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq, the Bush administration has been desperately trying to divert attention to Iran. Washington has gone so far as to make a series of dubious and unfounded charges that blame the Iranian government for the difficulties facing American forces fighting the Iraqi insurgency.Despite the absence of any credible reports of Iranian involvement in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, President George W. Bush last month formally authorized U.S. forces to “kill or capture” suspected Iranian agents in Iraq. “It makes sense that if somebody’s trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal,” Bush said , “that we will stop them.” It is unclear how U.S. occupation forces will be able to consistently discern the many thousands of ordinary Iranians who come to Iraq on business or for religious pilgrimages from these alleged agents they are authorized to kill. But the U.S. authorization does appear to effectively grant a license to assassinate Iranian officials who serve in various diplomatic functions. Heavily armed American forces have already seized several Iranian diplomats over strong protests of both the Iranian and Iraqi governments.Virtually all attacks against U.S. forces over the past couple of years have come from Baathist, Sunni, and other anti-Iranian groups. If Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias are also now targeting American forces, as President Bush implies, U.S. soldiers are now caught in a wedge between militants of both Arab communities. Despite U.S. charges, however, U.S. soldiers at this point have little to fear from Iran or Iranian-backed elements.Similarly, of the more than 10,000 suspected insurgents arrested in U.S. counter-insurgency sweeps, the relatively few foreigners among them have been Arabs, not Iranians. It makes little sense, then, why the Bush administration has depicted Iran as the principal foreign threat to U.S. forces in Iraq. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, compiled by America’s sixteen intelligence agencies and issued on February 11, downplayed Iran’s role in Iraq’s ongoing violence and instability.Indeed, the Bush administration’s sudden focus on Iran’s role in Iraq may simply be an effort to provoke an Iranian reaction that could then become an excuse for war. Whatever the reason, the motivation for blaming Iran must be pretty strong, given how much effort the U.S. government is putting into promoting such weak evidence.The Most Recent Charges... '

'According to acclaimed physicist Michio Kaku: “Any advanced civilization must grow in energy consumption faster than the frequency of life-threatening catastrophes (e.g. meteor impacts, ice ages, supernovas, etc.). If they grow any slower, they are doomed to extinction. This places mathematical lower limits on the rate of growth of these civilizations.”Kaku says that to survive requires growing sources of energy just to keep pace with demand, "Specifically, we can rank civilizations by their energy consumption”And America leads our world in energy consumption. Unfortunately, we derive most of our energy from a commodity that we don’t have enough of, oil. According to some, we can begin to find the alternative resources to build a secure energy future right here within our borders.But others, already invested in the infrastructure of the past have another plan for us. What they don’t have for themselves, they can just steal from those who do.America’s most giant corporations have Oil rich Islam staring down the barrels of their hired guns. But while Exxon and Unocal drool at the prospect of how they can best divie up the loot from what may later be known as History’s greatest armed robbery, it’s time the rest of us pause to think outside the box.Consider. Our planet’s limited supply of oil was created on earth millions of years ago and will eventually either run out or become thermodynamically and economically worthless. And remember, it takes energy to drill for oil let alone refine and transport it for market. In order for civilization to benefit from an energy resource, the finished product must be able to release more energy when put to work, than was used to prepare and develop it. As the easy to find oil is exhausted, the more difficult to extract oil that remains is less useful. Eventually, despite advances in drilling technology, the world’s oil will become less attractive than available alternatives or may simply become worthless as a source of useful energy.As that day approaches, we live in an America long since petroformed by the oil industry from a land of independent family farms and businesses, to a nation dependent like serfs on their lord, on the barons of oil for everything from fuel to fertilizer. Today as we watch without protest, a new Feudalism is being forged worldwide by their mighty armies, our indignation subdued by the prospect of fueling our SUVs with cheap ill begotten oil.And we will kill for them.Finding the High GroundThe high ground of the future is wherever the net energy is. That’s the energy we can put to work without having to expend much existent energy to get it.'

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — President Bush said Wednesday that he was certain that factions within the Iranian government had supplied Shiite militants in Iraq with deadly roadside bombs that had killed American troops. But he said he did not know whether Iran’s highest officials had directed the attacks.

Mr. Bush’s remarks amounted to his most specific accusation to date that Iran was undermining security in Iraq. They appeared to be part of a concerted effort by the White House to present a clearer, more direct case that Iran was supplying the potent weapons — and to push back against criticism that the intelligence used in reaching the conclusions was not credible.Speaking at a news conference in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Bush dismissed as “preposterous” the contention by some skeptics that the United States was drawing unwarranted conclusions about Iran’s role. He publicly endorsed assertions that had until now been presented only by anonymous military and intelligence officials, who have said that an elite branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps known as the Quds Force has provided Shiite militias in Iraq with the sophisticated weapons that have been responsible for killing at least 170 American soldiers and wounding more than 600.'

An investigation by the U.S. Southern Command into allegations of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay detention center has concluded that "insufficient evidence exists to substantiate the paralegal's allegations." But Lieutenant Colonel Colby Vokey, the superior officer to the Marine sergeant who filed the allegations, called the investigation "outrageous." "I am aware that the investigators interviewed only the suspects and some witnesses but did not interview any detainees or potential victims," he told ABC News. "Failure to interview those who may have been subjected to abuse is indicative of an incomplete investigation." As first reported on "The Blotter" on ABCNews.com, Heather Cerveny, 23, a Marine Corps sergeant, who spent a week on the base last September working as a legal aide to Lt. Col. Vokey, said she was "shocked" to hear several guards from different parts of the base openly speak of mistreating prisoners. One said, "I took the detainee by the head and smashed his head into the cell door," she told ABC News in October after filing a sworn affidavit with the Pentagon Inspector General. Another "was telling his buddy, 'Yeah, this one detainee, you know, really pissed me off, irritated me. So I just, you know, punched him in the face.'" The following investigation by SouthCom, which oversees military activities in the Caribbean and Latin America, looked into Cerveny's account and another filed by a civilian employee on the base that recounted a conversation between a female guard and a male interrogator on a training range. After interviewing 20 suspects and witnesses and combing through "three JTF-Guantanamo records systems used to trace detainee-guard interaction," investigators determined, "The evidence did not support any of the allegations of mistreatment and harassment." Amongst the recommendations issued by the investigating officer but ultimately rejected by the SouthCom commander following the investigation was "that disciplinary or other action be taken against Sergeant Cerveny," which Lt. Col Vokey says is the most "outrageous part of the investigation." "The interview of her [Sgt. Cerveny] was ridiculous and oppressive," he said. "The investigating officers, a colonel and a captain, walked straight into her office with the intent to accuse her of a crime before she even opened her mouth. The colonel already had the form in his hand to read her her rights and accuse her, before the interview started." Lt. Col. Vokey says this investigation sets a dangerous precedent for all officers who find themselves in a position to report suspected criminal activity. "This was outrageous and sends a dangerous message to all our service members: you'd better not report anything that goes on at Guantanamo Bay, or you'll be threatened or charged with a crime."Read the press release from United States Southern Command.'

dinsdag 13 februari 2007

'New York Times Trumpets Pentagon's Claims Over Iran Sending Bombs to Iraq

The new accusations of Iranian-supplied bombs in Iraq first appeared in Saturday's New York Times. The article was titled "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, US Says." Some media critics immediately compared the New York Times piece to its articles on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons program that were used by the Bush administration to make the case for invading Iraq.

These critics have pointed out two similar features between Saturday's article and those before the war --- a near-complete reliance on unnamed government sources, and the by-line of New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon.Gordon and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller co-authored the infamous September 8, 2002 piece alleging Iraq attempted to purchase aluminum tubes towards developing nuclear weapons. The New York Times later singled out the article as part of its editor's note apologizing for its inaccurate coverage of Iraq and WMD's. > Michael Gordon appeared on Democracy Now! last March. During our interview, I asked Michael Gordon about his reporting in the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq.• Michael Gordon, speaking on Democracy Now!I'm joined now in the studio by Rick MacArthur. He is the publisher of Harpers Magazine and author of the book "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda In the Gulf War." Craig Unger is still with us.• John "Rick" MacArthur, publisher of Harpers Magazine and author of the book "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda In the Gulf War."• Craig Unger, journalist and author. His latest article appears in Vanity Fair. It's called "From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq." He is the author of "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties."AMY GOODMAN: The new accusations of Iranian-supplied bombs in Iraq first appeared in Saturday's New York Times. The article was headlined "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, US Says." Some media critics immediately compared the New York Times piece to its articles on Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons program that were used by the Bush administration to make the case for invading Iraq.These critics have pointed out two similar features between Saturday's article and those before the war: near complete reliance on unnamed government sources and the byline of New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon.Gordon and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller co-authored the infamous September 8, 2002 piece, alleging Iraq attempted to purchase aluminum tubes towards developing nuclear weapons. The New York Times later singled out the article as part of its editor's note apologizing for its inaccurate coverage of Iraq and WMDs.Well, Michael Gordon appeared on Democracy Now! last March. During our interview, I asked him about his reporting in the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq.MICHAEL GORDON: There was no agency in the American government that said Saddam was not involved in WMD. You know, the State Department, although it's turned out to be correct, certainly on the nuclear issue, did not turn out to be -- you know, didn't challenge the biological case, the chemical case, and I'm going to offer you this last thought, and I'm happy to respond to any questions you have, but you know, there are a number of complicated WMD issues --AMY GOODMAN: Let me just ask something on that. Are you sorry you did the piece? Are you sorry that this piece --MICHAEL GORDON: No, I'm not. I mean, what -- I don't know if you understand how journalism works, but the way journalism works is you write what you know, and what you know at the time you try to convey as best you can, but then you don't stop reporting.AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me, let me --MICHAEL GORDON: Can I answer your question, since you asked me a question?AMY GOODMAN: Well, no, I wanted to get --MICHAEL GORDON: No, wait a second, if you ask me a question -- I'm happy to answer all your questions, but what I'm trying to explain to you is one thing. That was what I knew at the time. It's true that it was the key judgment. It’s the same information they presented to Colin Powell, by the way, and it's what persuaded him to go to the United Nations and make the case on the nuclear tubes. I wrote the contrary case, giving the IAEA equal time. They disputed it. I don't have a dog in this fight. I didn't know what was the ultimate truth. When the IAEA came out in January and disputed it, I reported it.AMY GOODMAN: Michael Gordon, let me just respond. We don’t -- we have limited time in the program, but I just --MICHAEL GORDON: Well, then you should let me answer your questions.AMY GOODMAN: I did.MICHAEL GORDON: No, you haven’t let me answer your question.AMY GOODMAN: Are you sorry then, that the New York Times was sorry that this piece appeared as it did on the front page of the New York Times.MICHAEL GORDON: I don't think "sorry" is the word the New York Times used.

AMY GOODMAN: That was the New York Times reporter Michael Gordon speaking on Democracy Now! last March. I’m joined in studio now by Rick MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s magazine, author of the book, Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, as well as by Craig Unger, who has this new piece in Vanity Fair called “From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq.”

Rick MacArthur, your response to the New York Times piece and then pieces, the news conference in Baghdad that people couldn't bring in their cameras, name names?RICK MACARTHUR: I always read the New York Times the way Sovietologists used to read Izvestia, the government newspaper, and I half-kiddingly always ask the question: is the New York Times playing the role of Izvestia or the role of Pravda, which was the party newspaper? The New York Times owes its success, its long-term success, economic and otherwise, to being close to the government, to being sort of the semiofficial government newspaper and giving the administration line to the public fairly unfiltered. And Michael Gordon is just a tool. He’s just a conduit for this policy that the paper has been pursuing for decades.So, what’s interesting about Michael Gordon is that when he did the reporting on the phony aluminum tube story with Judith Miller four years ago, he somehow escaped unharmed and is now thriving. He has a book out, as you saw, and he’s doing very well, and he's going around acting like he’s an expert on Iraq, when, in fact, he’s still playing the role of conduit for the official line, the Army line or the government line, depending on who he’s talking to on what day.Now, what’s interesting is the play that they gave his story on Saturday, the Michael Gordon story about the exploding canisters, or whatever they’re calling them. The canisters are called EFPs. They put it on the top of the front page, and it was the lead story, actually, in the Saturday paper. And not far down in the story, you find a paragraph -- actually, this was in the Monday story -- you find a paragraph where they say -- and this is very interesting -- that they don't have any real evidence, any direct evidence, that any of this is true. All they have is the say-so of the military, of briefers, or the National Security briefers. There’s one who is unnamed, who’s clearly been brought in from the civil side of the government to help buttress the case. Well, if they don't have direct evidence, why is it on the front page? Why is it the lead story?Just to give you a comparison, Newsday, a perfectly respectable newspaper, puts “US: Iran is Arming Shia” on page 22 on Monday. That is, yesterday. They do a story. They report what the military officials are claiming, but in the second paragraph, they say the military command in Baghdad denied, however, that any newly smuggled Iranian weapons were behind the five crashes of US military helicopters since January 20th, four confirmed as having been shot down by insurgent gunfire. So that is what journalism is, contrary to what Michael Gordon says. It’s putting the story in perspective, pointing out that the guerrilla movement, whatever you want to call it, in Iraq is broad-based, it’s dominated by Sunni, not by Shia.'